I agree generally although I would add that the fracturing of the public media lens, that we have seen over the last few decades, means that we have come to the point where practically speaking everyone is entitled to their own facts-- or at least a vision of them distant from others. This is what permits outright lying that would have been impossible to get away with on such a widespread scale only a decade ago.

Those who predicted that the information age could end with the Internet being able to obscure the truth with falsehoods so deep that for some people it may not be found. The inability of the masses to deploy the kind of critical thinking required to navigate Internet sources has become a threat to information so comprehensive that any somewhat democratic process is stymied.

Add this to all the critically important things this article raised and you can see the scale of the situation we are in and why I refuse to consider that the election is as predictable and past models instructive as some think.

I know people who support Trump -- dismissing so much said about him as lies and declaring so many things about Clinton to be true (without much consideration). These people are neither right wing nor stupid. They get angry when I point out how cult like their views are.

Remember that a characteristic of a cult is to cut the person off from the outside world. The responses of Trump seek to do exactly that. They work to destroy the credibility of any voices but their own. They myth this campaign is built on is you cannot trust anyone; the mainstream media is the enemy; everyone but Trump is lying; it is all a conspiracy. This is the most critical foundation of a cult -- to remove any alternate voices. With a self-selecting internet vision, you have digitally created isolation.

Add to all this the power of anger which is the foundation for Trump's views.

Those who are afraid are correct. Clinton may have the advantage but she is far from secure. History tells us nothing except that we are in something unprecedented.

I agree generally although I would add that the fracturing of the public media lens, that we have seen over the last few decades, means that we have come to the point where practically speaking everyone is entitled to their own facts-- or at least a vision of them distant from others.

The interesting part of this, to me, is that what fractured the public media lens was when news reportage was both opened up to everyone to do, and their results opened up to everyone to view.

Twenty years ago, news was reported by news agencies, who employed journalists, who covered stories (sometimes at great risk to themselves). Now "news" is reported by a blogger, by way of his opinion, and the once reputable news agencies are sneered at as "the MAINSTREAM MEDIA". If a babbler quotes a story from the Globe and Mail (aka the "Grope and Flail" or the "Mop and Pail") it's immediately suspect. And if they quote the blog and opinions of Paul Craig Roberts, it's immediately suspect. But at what point did these two news sources become equals?

It's like we've all just gone po-mo. Nobody can know anything, therefore everyone knows everything there is to know.

And FWIW, while we all like to chuckle at Fox (Faux?) News and those who tune in to it, I don't even think this is just a "right winger" thing. Seems to me that the left is just as excited to read some solid proof of the toxicity of vaccinations, the threat of "chemtrails", the "real" truth about 9/11, the hazards of wi-fi, the Bilderbergers collusion, the manufacture of the Sandy Hook "shootings", the CBC's fealty to the government of the day (whoever they may be) or Hillary Clinton's undisclosed terminal illness.

No one should be a candidate for the presidency who is over age 60 without being subject to a medical exam by independent medical examiners Both candidates are too old for such a stressful job Clinton tried to hid her illness which was the wrong thing to do although Trump hids everything

I don't like this at all.

Either you require everyone or nobody but to say a person is fine at 59 but not 60 is offensive. Age related illnesses do not come to everyone on the same schedule and to go with an arbitrary date does not make sense and is unjust.

If you want health fitness examinations for this office from all candidates that is a different argument.

Alternately perhaps countries should not focus and rely so much on a single individual. Maybe the solution is not to have a presidency with that much power in a single person.

And what kind of health examination do you mean? Do you include mental health? This is certainly arguable but due to stigma not very problematic. You would need to integrate mental health into the health continuum and remove social stigma (that's a job). and what type of privacy is allowed? What of conditions that would not affect the job -- does the public have a right to know? I don't think so. But who gets to decide what is relevent? Who gets to decide what conditions are okay for a president and does the public want to have a viewing for the rectal exam?

This is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long time. It is obviously not only agist but is an example of knowing no history.

Here is a list of US Presidents by age. Seems that there have been many who served well past their 60th birthday, about 40% of all Presidents. I would suggest maybe an intelligence test would be a better idea especially if it also came with a personality disorder screening test to keep sociopaths out of the office.

There are so many things wrong with Hillary's campaign which is just going from bad to worse She is too old Even if she does manage to win God forbid she even dreams about 2 terms By the way so is Trump And as much as I like him so is Saunders

The alt-right is circulating footage of Sanders running to catch a train. There are so many layers there it's actually brilliant.

I'm no fan of Hillary but the tone of a Trump presidency would be ugly to say the least.

Privatizing public schools,'defeating ISIS in 30 days' , 'Why do we have nukes if we can't use them' , '50% of Americans are losers' ,Mike Pence,Rudy Giuliani,Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes, 'eliminating crime' , etc.. And when asked how he'd achieve these things he babbles incoherently and repeats his message, 'Make America Great Again' He's a vapid,dull-minded sociopath.

Hillary? She's a 1980's Republican,a warhawk,referrerd black youth as super predators,supported the Iraq war and the Patriot Act,etc..

What a hot mess.

At the end of the day,on November 9,Americans will be losers either way it goes.

Trump's appointment of a militarty advisor says that if he wins he will do much the same as if Hillary wins. In the real world neither of them actually are going to be deciding on what the US military industrial complex will do. Either will be the head waiter for the real powers that be.

Quote:

Former CIA director James Woolsey, a vocal advocate of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harboured illegal weapons, will serve as a senior national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the campaign announced on Monday.

Woolsey’s hiring contrasted with Trump’s repeated assertions that he was a stalwart opponent of the invasion, although he initially supported it.

In the announcement, Woolsey said he supports Trump’s plan to expand the US military, which calls for ending Pentagon budget caps and spending billions of dollars for additional troops, ships and aircraft.

Trump's appointment of a militarty advisor says that if he wins he will do much the same as if Hillary wins. In the real world neither of them actually are going to be deciding on what the US military industrial complex will do. Either will be the head waiter for the real powers that be.

Quote:

Former CIA director James Woolsey, a vocal advocate of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harboured illegal weapons, will serve as a senior national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the campaign announced on Monday.

Woolsey’s hiring contrasted with Trump’s repeated assertions that he was a stalwart opponent of the invasion, although he initially supported it.

In the announcement, Woolsey said he supports Trump’s plan to expand the US military, which calls for ending Pentagon budget caps and spending billions of dollars for additional troops, ships and aircraft.

I'm no fan of Hillary but the tone of a Trump presidency would be ugly to say the least.

Privatizing public schools,'defeating ISIS in 30 days' , 'Why do we have nukes if we can't use them' , '50% of Americans are losers' ,Mike Pence,Rudy Giuliani,Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes, 'eliminating crime' , etc.. And when asked how he'd achieve these things he babbles incoherently and repeats his message, 'Make America Great Again' He's a vapid,dull-minded sociopath.

Hillary? She's a 1980's Republican,a warhawk,referrerd black youth as super predators,supported the Iraq war and the Patriot Act,etc..

What a hot mess.

At the end of the day,on November 9,Americans will be losers either way it goes.